The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

Combining Evolution and Creationism

There are some people who try to reconcile the Bible’s account of creation with science. In this interpretation, God uses evolution in the creation process. Science seems to confirm that man was the last creation of all animals, as Genesis attests. In this interpretation, Adam wasn’t so much the first man on the earth, but was the first man to receive revelation from God. So, Adam is the first prophet and father of mankind in the same way that George Washington of the father of our country. Certainly Washington didn’t father all of America’s children, but we call him the father of mankind. The bonus of this story is that it agrees with the fossil record. Archaeology shows man is much older than the 6000 years that the Bible seems to imply. It does seem that recorded history is just about 6000 years old, which seems relatively confirmed by the Bible. What do you think of this reconciliation? Could God have used evolution in the creation process?

Post navigation

18 thoughts on “Combining Evolution and Creationism”

I’ve always maintained the maxim that there is no difference between pure science and pure religion. As a science fiction guy and keenly interested in how the Earth came to be, it seems obvious that the creation story is an honest recounting of the event told from the perspective of someone on the ground watching it all whizz by as if shown via elapse time photography. How life was placed here… I’m less sure of. At the end of the day though, I know however God created man, He did so in accordance with physical law. (We don’t have to know how, but for now, that’s enough for me.) I think it’s fascinating to contemplate that Eve may have been cloned and then genetically modified from Adam.

I used to think that God might have used evolution to create life, but more recently I realised that if he used it to create humans (and we have clear evidence of human evolution) that it would have been a startlingly inefficient and convoluted way to reach what humans are. Add to that the fact that we are not the pinnacle of evolution, but only the (current) end point of our own small branch of the evolutionary tree, and you can’t help but see that the notion of a creator God using evolution to create bodies for his spirit children, who are made in his image, makes no sense at all.

The only conception of God that jibes with evolution is the Deist one – a god that starts life going and then just walks away and never intervenes again. And there would be no logic, in that scenario, to the idea that we humans were the ultimate goal of the process.

Certainly God could have used the evolutionary process, but the theory of evolution does not require a God, nor does the idea of God require evolution. The two ideas are combined only when we try to reconcile what we learn from science with what we learn from (scripture/tradition/other sources).

I do not think science confirms that man is the last creation. I think science would say that evolution is continuing gradually over time. The easiest to see examples are in microbiology, where antibiotic resistant bacteria flourish a short while after each new antibiotic is introduced. And humans may also be responsible for creation of new species through domestication and selective breeding of dogs, cows, pigs, horses, goats, sheep, llamas, not to mention crops and other plant species. Whether these changes constitute “creation” may be up for debate, but scientists would for the most part agree that in the future many new species will arise naturally.

Very soon they will be combined. The church will say evolution is true, it’s the method god used to create life.

Religion avoids and fights science until it realizes science is right, then it claims science as god’s way. Story as old as time.

Actually, religion avoids and fights science until after it realizes science is right, but waits until the vast majority of the people realize science is right, and then the church claims science as god’s doing.

Rockwell:
“Certainly God could have used the evolutionary process, but the theory of evolution does not require a God, nor does the idea of God require evolution.” That’s interesting. I never thought of it like that.
Keep in mind, though, that God is a real person. He can use physical and spiritual things the way He wants to. Man is a real person too, but is pretty poor at the use of either physical or spiritual things. Oh well, he thinks he’s pretty good with the physical and doesn’t seem to think the spiritual is real.
“… the theory of evolution does not require a God.”
The theory of evolution comes from man and so it is man who seems to think he does not require God and God does not think He requires man. Which one is going to win? I would think the most knowledgeable and the strongest.
Man has written a lot about what he feels he has discovered about evolution and God has written very little about how he feels He actually made things.
It may take a millennial system to settle this thing. Until then we might have to live and let live. Keep thinking.

The amazing thing about evolution (IMHO) theologically are the implications it has for free agency. If God created us – had his fingers in the pie as it were – then we could (rightly) say in response to final judgement, “well, YOU made me this way!”

Evolution by random mutation removes this and leaves us solely responsible for what we do with our position on Earth. That being said it does do some serious violence to the idea that we are ‘created in the image of God.’

I’m OK with the idea of ditching a God that looks exactly like me for a God that values free choice above all else.

Evolution is not a theory of the creation of life, but rather of the diversity of life. As I understand it, scientists do not currently have a good working theory for the beginning of life on earth, although there are some interesting ideas. So I suppose that leaves room for a Deistic initial creation, leaving the rest to evolution.

I think Adam and Eve are best understood as being symbolic and mythological. In my view, it just gets too messy to think of them as real people in history in any way that makes sense with the historical and scientific record.

I recently read The Magician’s Nephew, by C.S. Lewis. He describes the creation of Narnia as an event where the lion, Aslan, appears on a new world and sings a creation song that causes all the plants and animals to rise up out of the ground fully formed. The language and imagery was beautiful, but I found it actually a bit insulting. Every organism on the earth today is the result of billions and billions of previous organisms that were born, reproduced, and died. The real story of creation (or evolution) is one of so much death and struggle for survival, eating and being eaten, disease and starvation, guided by nothing more than random mutations and environmental pressures. Lewis’s instant creation by an all-powerful being seemed trivial and puny compared to the actual, awful yet awe-inspiring, evolution of life over two billion years.

I used to think of God’s role in creation like the monolith in 2001 a Space Odyssey, putting His finger on the scales to advance hominids in intelligence and development. But I no longer think of the current human form as somehow arriving at a perfect or final destination. Evolution is not moving forward, it is moving through.

Debbie said, “[Evolution] would have been a startlingly inefficient and convoluted way to reach what humans are.” Given that we’re startlingly inefficient creatures–with exciting things like cancer, congenital microencephaly, prehensile tails, ambiguous sexuality/genitalia, and wisdom teeth all making appearances–I can live with this. Life, biology, and the human body are all remarkable things, but none of them are perfect by any stretch.

And we have a “startlingly inefficient” religion as well. There is efficiency in the universe, as it relates to the natural laws. But our wandering lives and cultures take long detours within that giant framework of natural laws slowly and immutably moving forward.

At least in American culture, we maintain a separation of religious and scientific circles, though I wonder if institutions founded on a religious basis (like BYU) respect science enough (likely so though there are concerns about academic freedom) and ‘secular’ institutions, with well-documented disdain of and hostility towards faith-based thought, respect each other enough.

There’s a problem when the administration of either science or faith is done in an OFFICIAL capacity, even more when the roles are combined with one ‘man’…for example, the esteemed Dr. Zaius! Col George Taylor, USAF, called him out at Cornelius’ archeological dig site in the ‘Forbidden Zone’ for his contradictory roles as Minister of Science AND ‘Chief Defender of the Faith’. Zaius’ response? “There is no contradiction between faith and science… true science!” Uh-huh…

Interestingly enough, as an assignment at BYU I had to study several writings by B.H.Roberts. He was a scientist who was also an Apostle. He had some interesting insight into the idea of creationism vs. evolution and he seemed to conclude that they worked hand in hand together.

Joel said, “Evolution is not a theory of the creation of life, but rather of the diversity of life. As I understand it, scientists do not currently have a good working theory for the beginning of life on earth, although there are some interesting ideas. So I suppose that leaves room for a Deistic initial creation, leaving the rest to evolution.”

While I agree that this is possible, I would just like to point out that a lack of perfect knowledge of the beginning of life on earth does not mean scientists figure it was god. In fact, 10% of members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god, only 5% of biologists.

Now, you said deistic, which would be the opposite of a personal god, but I just wanted to point out that a lack of a scientific explanation does not lead most to conclude it must have been god.

Can a believe in god coexist with evolution? Of course. One can believe god simply used evolution as his means of diversity of life.

Can a believe in the biblical version of creation coexist with evolution? Yes, but that would require not taking the bible too literally and being open to different meanings from the bible’s account, which is fine.

Can a believe in the LDS faith coexist with evolution? At first glance, why not? But if you look deeper, there are some problems here. There have been multiple First Presidency Messages (that have not been revoked) that state the man was a direct descendant of god (no room for millions of years of other species slowly developing into man). You have quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie and plenty of others teaching that Darwin’s teachings were wrong, to put it lightly. The Old Testament Student Handbook probably said it best: “In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man. … [quoting Joseph Fielding Smith:] “Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both…. I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.”

Now, as I said above, I do believe the church will eventually combine evolution and the gospel by saying, god used evolution to create all the forms of life. But they will have to get over some hurdles first. And as far as I am concerned, I agree with Joseph Fielding Smith, just as he believe there is a huge gulf between the origin of man and the plan of salvation, I believe there is a huge gulf between science and religion.

Dexter, I agree with you about the lack of a scientific explanation for the origin of life not necessarily pointing to the existence of a creator. I’m personally agnostic. There is also a long history of unexplained phenomenon finding naturalistic explanations, and so I fully expect that to happen with the origin of terrestrial life.

I don’t, however, see the Church ever officially acknowleding evolution. The science has been pretty well established for 150 years. Right now, by having no position at all, they leave room for people who accept evolution and those who reject it. I don’t see what they would gain by embracing it. It would cast doubt on the credibility of previous prophets who rejected evolution and drive away creationist members. Would that really be offset by the pro-science crowd? And for them to even get to the point of making that calculus, all 15 of the Apostles would have to be in agreement about evolution, and I just don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon. As long as evolution remains controversial in U.S. society, I predict the LDS Church will continue to take no official position on it.